New Delhi, December 30, 2025 – As the curtains fall on a tumultuous year for India's judiciary, the Supreme Court of India has been marked by an unusual wave of self-corrections, overturning or staying its own landmark orders sometimes within weeks or months. Dubbed a "year of flip-flops" by legal observers, these reversals span critical areas from environmental protection and corporate insolvency to animal welfare and federalism, raising questions about judicial consistency and the pressures of a high-stakes docket.
In a rare moment of introspection, a two-judge bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih on November 26, 2025, voiced deep concern over this emerging pattern, warning that frequent overturns by coordinate benches could "erode the authority and credibility" of the apex court. "Judicial discipline demands deference to earlier views unless they are grossly erroneous," the bench observed in a judgment that itself highlighted the need for restraint amid "haste in original decisions" and a "judge-centric approach." This candid admission came amid a series of high-profile U-turns that have left stakeholders—from steel tycoons to environmentalists—scrambling to adapt.
The trend began early in the year with a dramatic intervention in the corporate insolvency arena.
### Bhushan Steel: From Liquidation to Revival in Four Months
On May 2, 2025, a three-judge bench led by Justice B.V. Nagarathna quashed JSW Steel's ₹19,700-crore acquisition of the debt-ridden Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd (BPSL), ordering its immediate liquidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The ruling prioritized creditor recovery over revival, upending a 2019 resolution plan approved by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The decision sent shockwaves through India's steel industry, with JSW arguing it undermined the IBC's goal of salvaging viable businesses.
Barely three months later, on July 31, 2025, the same court agreed to revisit its order following urgent pleas from JSW and other stakeholders. By September 26, 2025, the bench reversed course entirely, upholding the original resolution plan and directing BPSL's handover to JSW. The final judgment emphasized that "liquidation is a last resort," aligning with the IBC's revival ethos—a direct rebuke to its own May directive. Legal experts hailed the correction as a win for economic stability but criticized the initial haste.
### Environmental Clearances: Banning Retrospectives, Then Allowing Them Sparingly
May 2025 also saw a bold environmental stance. On May 16, a two-judge bench in the Vanashakti petition declared ex post facto (retrospective) environmental clearances "illegal" under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, aiming to curb post-facto regularization of illegal projects. The ruling was a victory for conservationists, who argued it would deter violations in ecologically sensitive zones.
Six months on, the plot thickened. On November 18, 2025, the same bench, in a 2:1 majority, recalled its May verdict following a review petition by the Confederation of Real Estate Developers' Associations of India (CREDAI). The revised order in CREDAI v. Vanashakti permitted such clearances "sparingly" for genuine cases, overruling not just the 2025 decision but also a 2023 precedent deemed "per incuriam" (made in ignorance of law). Dissenting Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra called it a "demotion of the law to a suggestion," warning of weakened environmental safeguards. Critics, including former civil servants, accused the court of diluting its constitutional duty to protect nature.
### Stray Dogs: A Swift U-Turn on Urban Animal Control
The summer brought a lighter but no less contentious flip-flop. Alarmed by rising dog bites and rabies deaths in Delhi-NCR, the court took suo motu cognizance on August 11, 2025, directing authorities to capture stray dogs and confine them in shelters, complete with mandates for feeding and medical care. Animal rights groups decried it as "draconian," clashing with the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001.
Just 11 days later, on August 22, a larger three-judge bench intervened, transferring the matter and modifying the order to align with existing rules: sterilized and vaccinated strays must be released back to their territories. Labeling the original directive "too harsh" and "impossible to implement," the bench prioritized humane treatment over mass confinement. The quick pivot averted a logistical nightmare for municipalities but underscored the perils of knee-jerk judicial activism.
### Federalism Flashpoint: Governors' Powers and the Advisory Retreat
Mid-year tensions over gubernatorial delays in bill assents peaked in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (early 2025), where the court imposed strict timelines to prevent "pocket vetoes" by state heads, bolstering federal balance.
However, a presidential reference under Article 143 prompted a five-judge bench to issue an advisory opinion on November 20, 2025, effectively dismantling those timelines. The opinion held that Governors and the President wield "absolute discretion" in withholding assent or reserving bills for reconsideration—even a second time—and that such powers are largely non-justiciable, barring "undue delays." Opposition-ruled states decried it as a "de facto Union veto," eroding earlier gains in cooperative federalism.
### Aravali Mining: A Last-Minute Stay Amid Protests
The year's final twist unfolded in the ecologically fragile Aravali hills. On November 20, 2025, the court defined the range using a 100-meter elevation threshold to regulate mining, aiming to protect the biodiversity hotspot spanning Haryana, Rajasthan, and Delhi.
Public outcry from environmentalists and locals prompted a dramatic self-stay on December 29—just its last working day of 2025. The bench kept the order in abeyance, announcing a fresh expert committee to refine the definition, citing the need for "more nuanced" boundaries. With hearings slated for January 2026, the move buys time but leaves mining operations in limbo.
### Reflections on a Year of Judicial Jujitsu
These reversals, while correcting potential errors, have fueled debates on the Supreme Court's workload—over 80,000 pending cases—and the risks of multi-bench fragmentation. Chief Justice Surya Kant, who assumed office mid-year, has initiated procedural resets, including mandatory listings for review petitions, to stem the tide. As 2025 ends, the apex court stands at a crossroads: a guardian of precedent or a nimble responder to evolving realities?
By TCO News Desk. This report draws on court judgments and analyses from Supreme Court Observer, The Times of India, The Hindu, and Reuters.
For More News Updates Follow Us On Www.tconews.in
